About your Search

20131102
20131102
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
officials testify on national security agency surveillance programs followed by a hearing onthe washington -- shooting -- the shooting at the washington naval yard. next, the house intelligence onmittee hearing testimony the national security agency intelligence programs in the u.s. and abroad. witnesses included national intelligence agency director james clapper and homeland security department officials. this hearing is two-and-a-half hours. >> i remind all guests that i will only accept civil the koran and only those recognized to speak will be allowed to speak andhe core him --decorum only those recognized to speak will be allowed to speak. i would like to recognize our first panel today. director of national intelligence james clapper james clapper,, deputy attorney the deputyes cole, director of the nsa, chris inglis. we will move immediately into the second panel of non- governmental experts knowledgeable on fisa issues. we will discuss possible changes to the way fisa applications are handled by the department of justice. i hope all of our witnesses will give clear answers about
by which agencies make national security and suitability determinations. we must ensure those processes and the processes for granting or revoking access to facilities and information systems fully mitigate risks. we have a multisector work force, comprised of military, civilian, and contractor personnel. we work to ensure robust vetting policies and policies are applied to all individuals with access to federal facilities, networks, or classified information in a consistent manner. this approach reflects two important principles, first, the need to protect our national security is no less critical when the work is performed by contractors than when it is performed by federal employees. second, the men and women who make up the contractor work force are no less patriotic than their government counterparts, and in fact many have had meaningful careers as federal employees or in the armed forces. while we have made significant progress in the area of suitability security clearance and credentialing process reform, we need to do more. in 2004, congress passed the intelligence reform and te
this dumping, they maximized its profits. many national security experts long argued that the security we have to ask whether the system is fundment tally flawed. we should also be mindful for many years both congress and the federal agencies were concerned about the backlog of security clearance applications which grew larger after 9/11. we need to make sure that investigators do not feel pressured to sacrifice quality for speed. many of heard me say that almost everything i do i know i can do better. same is true, i think, for all of us, and most federal programs. it is in that spirit we convened today's hearing. our primary purpose is to learn what we're doing right in the security process, do more of that, while also learning how we can improve it. we have many questions to ask. here's some of them. are we looking at the risk factors in attempting to identify people who should not be trusted with a clearance or who should do serious harm for our government and our country? what important information do background checks miss in the current system which relies heavily on self-reporting by t
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)